Reading a Mgila in Hebron

Historical discussion - Halakhi by Noam Arnon and Eliezer Ephrasmon

introduction:

The subject of reading the scroll in Hebron has received many articles and we will not repeat them here. Our goal is to review the main sources and the new findings, and propose to combine them.

The reason for reading the Megillah in walled cities from the time of Yehoshua ben Nun in the 2nd year of Adar is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Tractate Megillah chapter 1

Volumes of the mokapin wall from the death of Yehoshua ben Nun Korin in the fifteenth year. R. Simon in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: They paid respect to Eretz Yisrael which was in ruins in those days and hung it from the death of Yehoshua ben Nun.

This article is intended to pay respect to Eretz Yisrael, and Yahar that she will build in Israel for the sake of her people who return to her.

Summary of main points

Hebron must have been surrounded by a wall in the days of Yehoshua ben Nun as can be seen from all the verses of the Bible and also from all the archaeological excavations at Tel Hebron, especially the recent excavations (from 2014 - 2014).

The wall was neither destroyed nor hidden, but on the contrary: it was strengthened and fortified by the kings of Judah.

The conclusion of the Gemara (Machot 11:1) is that the central part of Hebron, surrounded by a wall, belonged to Judah (the children of Caleb), while the suburbs around it (which are not surrounded) were a city of Levites and a city of refuge.

Regarding the reading of the Megillah, we do not find an obligation to find out and determine whether the wall was hidden (or about to be hidden) or if the city sat and was finally surrounded, but only to know that there was a wall in the days of Joshua - and this is a sufficient condition for reading the Megillah.

The Radbaz wrote that in Hebron they read only on the 14th of Adar, but in practice the custom in ancient Hebron was to read two days, as testified by all the rabbis of Hebron, including the Hida, and it is assumed that this was also the practice of "Chesd Lavraham", "Rashit Chochma" and all the sages and elders of Hebron .

There were those who tried to justify the opinion of the Rabbis with the belief that the wall was (intended) to be hidden, but this fact was denied and is not significant regarding the Megillah. Even if it is said that for the purpose of reading the Megillah in the 15th century there is an obligation that the city be surrounded by a wall even after the days of Joshua, and the wall was not intended To be hidden, according to "Baal Torim" followed by "Aruch Laner" and Rabbi Kook zt'l in a medium-sized shelter city (like Hebron) the wall should remain and not be hidden, but on the contrary - the wall should be preserved and strengthened, as indeed was the reality in Hebron.

In the days of the ancient Hebron community, the wall was not seen in its entirety; On the surface, several stones were seen sticking out of the ground, so the rabbis of the city stopped reading two days as sufficient (not according to the opinion of the Rabbis), and blessing on the first day like most of the world.

Nowadays, when it is already clear that there is a wall that was built already in the Canaanite period and strengthened during the Kingdom of Judah, therefore the doubt has been eliminated and it should be read in Hebron as in every volume surrounded by a wall in the days of Yehoshua ben Nun.

In spite of the above, the ancient custom of reading a scroll for two days should not be abolished, but the blessing should be in the Tou, as was ruled by Rabbi Kook zt'al for the Beit Vagan neighborhood in Berishita before it was annexed to Jerusalem. However, the authors inform that they are not Halachic judges, and this compilation For the rabbis of Israel to rule the Halacha in practice.

Biblical sources

First, we will quote sources from the Bible that prove that Hebron was already surrounded by a wall from the days of Abraham our father, and continued to be surrounded by a wall during the days of Yehoshua ben Nun; The city itself was given to the priests, dedicated to the city of refuge, and its suburbs were given to the tribe of Judah.

Hebron had a wall and a gate in the days of David, and the wall was even strengthened and strengthened in the days of Rehoboam son of Solomon. The city had walls and gates (of course without a wall the gate has no meaning, therefore the mention of a gate indicates the existence of a wall surrounding the entire city).

Genesis 23 17 - 18

And the field and the cave that is in it were established for Abraham--to hold a grave: a hundred, sons of Heth.

In the wilderness 13:22

וַיַּאל֣ו בנגג֘ וֹיַּ֣א אַד-Hebron֒ ושִפעָעָים ֙ שַ֣י וטלמִי יליד֖י האּנ֑ק וקברוֹן ש֤בע שנים֙ M.

Deuteronomy 1

אַ֣ה׀ אַ֣חְנו אולִים אַינוִים המוֹר בבונו לאמור ע֣ם ָָוּול ורמ֙ ממְנו ארים ְדוּּת ובצורְת בַּח֑יִים בְּנִי אנק֑ים רא We are there.

Joshua 11:11

ויָּבְא יַָָּ֜עִ בְ֣ת הִיא ויקְת הֽאנקים֙ מְהְר מעברו֙ מן דב֣ר מענאב ומקול֙ ה֣ר יהודוא ומקֹּ֖ל ה֣ר ישרא֑ל עמ עְל ריה֖ם הְרימ֥ם יְהוַֽׁׁ.

Joshua 12 - 13

And now give me the same word that the Lord spoke in the day of the Lord. ִי֙ וְה֣וֹרַשְתִּ֔ים קַּאשֶׁ֖ר דִּבִ֥ר God. And blessed was Yehoshua and he gave Hebron to the son of Yefone for an inheritance.

Joshua 21-13

וֽֽיְהי֙ לבְ֣י Aְְּן מִּשִפִּ֥וֹת הקְּט֖י מִבְ֣י לִ֑י קִ֥י לְהִמ הִ֥ה הִּּ֥ל רַָּֽׁה. And they gave to them Kiryatsi Arba'a Abi'i Ha'ho'Ean'ok Hi'ya Hebr'on in Ha'ar Yehuda'a and the field around it. And the field and the courtyard we gave to the son of Yafune in his possession. And there is a lot of time for the city, but you have to do it.

Joshua 21-9

And God spoke to Joshua saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and I will give you the words of the recording that I spoke to you by the hand of Moses. לְנ֥וֹס שָׁ֙מָּ֙ רְֵחַ מקֵה נ֥פשפ בִּשִִּ֖ע בִּבִלִי ָ֑עֹ וְהִו לְקֶמ֙ למקּ֔ט מֹּאֵ֖ל הְדֽמ. He opened the door of the city and spoke in the ears of the elders of the city. ו ל֥ו מִק֖וֹמ וִיַָׁ֥ב ִָּֽמ. וקִי יִרְדֹ֜פ ֹּאֵ֤ל הְדִמ֙ His enemies and will not close the רְ֖חָ by יד֑ו Wm. And Yes ׁ֣ב בָּבִ֣יר הִ֗יא אד אמדו לפנִי הָֽאדה֙ למיַּפְט אַד מוֹֹ ֙ וֶל ֵּיִת֔וֹ אַל הִ֖יר אַשֶר נ֥ס מָּֽׁׁ. And they consecrated the temple in the Galilee in the Naphtali temple, and the Shekhem in the Ephraim temple, and the Arba'a church in Hebron in the Yehudah temple. And over the Jordan, Jericho, from the east, they gave Bezer in the desert, in the Mishorer, from the land of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead, from the land of God, and Golan in ַּבָּשָ֖ן מַּמּטֵ֥ה מנָּֽׁׁ. א֣לא היויש ארעי המֽמואד֜ה ל֣ל בְּי יַשְרא֗ל ולגֵר֙ הָּ֣ר בטוקם לנ֣וס שּמא קל מקק נ֖פש בִשְג֑ה ולֹ֣א ימוֹ בֹּאֵ֣ל ה֣ דָּ֔ם אָד עמד֖ו לְפְ֥י הֺדָֽ.

Shmuel B B A - D

And what is the same as I will do with God: God said, וַיֹּ֧אמְר ָּדִד O֥נה אְלֶ֖ה? And he said - Hebron! וַיַּ֤עּשָם֙ David וַ֖ם שְתֵּ֣י נָשָׁ֑יו אַיַנ֙עַם֙ The Israelite and the Abiga֕יִל א֖שַט נָ֥ל הֽקַרמלֽי. And אנששָ֧יו אַשְר ִמָּו הִּ֥ה דִ֖ד ִ֣ישו וִבֵ֑ו וַיֵּשְב֖ו בְּ֥י Hebron. ויָּב֙ו֙ The people of Judah and they anointed David to be king over the people of Judah.

2 Shmuel

ויֵֵּ֤א יואב֙ מֵ֣מ דִָ֔ד וַיִַל֤ח מלאַים֙ after Abner ויַיֵ֤א אַתְו מֵ֣ור הסִּ֑ה וְדִ֖ד ל֥א ידָֽע. ויָּ֤שב Abner֙ Hebr֔on וַיַּ֤֤הוֹ Yoab֙ אל ת֣וך השָּրר לדבּ֥ר ִתְּו בַּ֑לי וַיֵַּ֤הו שָמ֙ HaHomesh וִפַמְעַּּל His brothers. ויייַשמ֤ע דוִד֙ מֵא֣חְרי קְנ ויֹּאמר נקי אנקי ו ממלקטרי מִ֥מ הָה אַד אוּ֑ם מדמ֖י בְְּרי בְנִר... ויִיקֵר֥ו ְְְֵֵֵּּ בְְּר֑וִןִ That the Lord went to his voice and wept to K'ber Abner and all the people wept.

2 Chronicles 115-12

ויֵּ֥שב רחַבְע֖ם בְּירושּל֑מ וַיִ֧ב ארים למזור ביודָֽה. And he built a house for bread and a goat and a goat. And the house of Tshur, and the שוק֖ו, and the edulem. And Gaַּת and Maresh֖a and Zif. And with God, and with God, and with strength. ואט זרעה֙ ואט איָּּוּוֵֹּּּוְָּּוֹּן אַַ֥ר בִּיוָ֖ה ובְבִיָּמִ֑ן אְר֖י מצורֽות. ויחזגֵ֖ק המְּכֵּ֖ק וִיִִּ֤֤פְן בְחִם נגידיִים ואצר֥ות מאק֖ל ושְץמן וָֽיִין, and in every ִ֤יר איר֙ צינ֣ות and רמִים, and ֽיחזק֖ם to multiply God and Benjamin

The conclusion that emerges from these sources is that Hebron was surrounded by a wall and functioned as a central city in Judah, a city of priests, a city of refuge, the first capital of David's kingdom, and a fortified and fortified city during the Kingdom of Judah. Throughout all periods the existence of a wall or a gate is mentioned, and there is no doubt about that.

The custom of reading the scroll in Hebron

The Law of the Doubtful Cities, despite the unambiguous sources, in fact the custom in Hebron was to call two days as a city that there is doubt whether it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun.

The custom of the provided cities is to read two days, as mentioned in the Gemara Megillah regarding Tiberias and Hotzel:

(Babylonian Megilla 51-2):

"Rabbi Elazar said, Rabbi Hanina said: Rabbi planted a tree on Purim...Rabbi bar Arbiser Hoh, and because he planted - in Hamisar he planted. Am I not? And the Rabbi in Tiberias Hoh, and Tiberias has been surrounded by a wall since the death of Yehoshua ben Nun Hoh! - Rather, Rabbi Bar Hamisr Hoh, And that he planted - Barbiser Hoh.

And who did the detbaria lie surrounded by a wall since the days of Yehoshua ben Nun? And Hezekiah, who is in Tiberias, Arbisar, and Hamisar, says that an island surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun is not an island! For Hezekiah - from Mefka Leah, for the Rabbi - Peshita Leah (the Rabbi was clear that Tiberias was surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun (and it should be said that Saber and the sea were also considered walled as we will see below) and so he planted on the fourteenth; this is the conclusion of the Shas.).

Gopa: Hezekiah Keri in Tiberias, Arbisar and Hamisar, says that an island surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun is not an island.

And who supplies her with a detbaria? And the dictation (Joshua 19:5) "And the cities of the fortress of the sides are narrow and Hamath Rakhat and Kinneret" and Keima len - this Rakhat is Tiberias!

Heino tama damspeka liya: because he is a tyrant, he is looking for a dima hot. (There was a beach on one side of the city).

Is the most motherly enough for her? Of course it is a wall! Deuteronomy: "Whoever has a wall" (and read like this to) "And he will not speak until he has completed a year of innocence, and the house that is in the city has been built, and he has built a wall for the construction of the house." Yu ל֥א יֵפ֖א בַּיֹּבֵֽל” - and no bull was around - except for Tiberias, did she build a wall?!

- Regarding the houses of the walled cities, it is not sufficient for it (which is not surrounded by a wall), because Ka is sufficient for it - Regarding the reading of the Megillah: May Perzim and May Mokfin Dakhtibi Gabi Mekaray Megillah? Because I am afraid and I am not afraid, and the Nami Miglia, or Dalma: because the Dhani protected and I did not protect, and the Nami Mignaya, because it is the most satisfying to her.

Rabbi Asi Keri wrote a scroll in Hotzel in Erbisar and Hamisar, stating that an island surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun is not an island.

Icha Damer, Rabbi Assi said: The island of Hatzel Davit Binyamin has been surrounded by a wall since the days of Yehoshua. (Note: Hotzel is not mentioned in the Bible but in the sources of the Sages, both in Israel and in Babylon [1]).

Following on from this issue, we need to find out - are the laws of reading a scroll in a walled city equal to all the laws of a walled city?

The "walled city" has unique laws on several subjects: sending a leper, buying and confiscating houses, and reading a scroll. The question is - are the laws of all these subjects equal, and is the definition of a city as a "walled city" equal for all of them?

According to the above issue there is no identity between the definition of a walled city Regarding the sale of houses and between the definition of a city surrounded by a wall and the matter of reading a scroll, and according to Hezekiah Tiberias remained in doubt regarding the reading of a scroll, but according to the rabbis it is simply that the sea constitutes a wall.

In the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1a) it is stated:

Hezekiah called to her on the fourteenth and 15th of the year, he was afraid of her religious Rashbi: "And a man because he will sell the house of Moshav in a walled city (and read like this 29)" - except for Tiberias that the sea is a wall for her.

Rabbi Yochanan called her baknishta dachifra and said: This is the main point of Tiberia Kadmiita.

The interpretation of "Karban Ada" clarifies in Rabbi Yochanan's opinion that the same city may have a different law, between defining it as a walled city for the purpose of owning houses and between defining it as a walled city for the purpose of reading the Megillah:

"Rabbi Yochanan read a scroll in the Dachofra Synagogue in the 15th century and said this is the first chapter of Tiberias that was from the 12th century, and he did not fear that Ha Darshabi would do it in the 14th. , for the sake of a scroll in general, she is Mokfin, Delanin Mignaya is careful to read, and Tiberia Mignaia is one of her enemies."

(It should be noted that from Rashi's words in the scroll, page 17, it may be understood that the law regarding the reading of the scroll in cities surrounded by the 12th century is equivalent to the law regarding houses in walled cities regarding the sale of houses and sending a leper; thus Rashi's language:

"All these unleavened bread - which are practiced in the walled cities: sending a leper, and reading a scroll at the fifteenth, and the house is steeped in it for the end of the year."

But it can be explained that Rashi detailed the various laws that were said regarding the walled cities (see below) and also included the law of reading a scroll, but he does not mean that all the laws are equal, since it is clear that the Gemara itself divides between the houses of walled cities and the reading of the Megillah on the question of whether the sea is called a wall) .

In conclusion

It is not necessary to say that the same laws apply to all subjects, and it is possible to say that regarding the reading of the Megillah, the definitions of a city surrounded by a wall may be different, and it is possible that the fact that the city was surrounded in the days of Joshua (regardless of the question of what happened to the wall afterwards) is sufficient to determine that the reading of the Megillah will be on the day of the 15th .

This is apparently how we can learn from Rambam; regarding the reading of the Megillah, Rambam only mentions "surrounded by a wall in the 12th century", and does not mention "a city of refuge" or other conditions, and thus Rambam's language:

"What is the time of her reading? Many times have the sages chosen for her as it is said "in their time", and these are the times of her reading:

Every country that was surrounded by a wall in the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, whether in the land or outside the land, even though it does not have a wall now - Korin on the fifteenth of Adar, and this country is called "Karach".

And every country that was not surrounded by a wall in the days of Joshua, even though it is surrounded now, is counted in fourteen and this country is called "city". (Rambam Halachot Megillah and Hanukkah Chapter 1 Halachah 4)

And regarding the city of refuge Rambam says:

"Cities of refuge are not to be made big towns, nor large towns, nor small towns, but medium-sized towns,... and they are not to be settled except in the place of a population, their population is reduced, they are added to them, their dwellings are reduced, they are put into the contents of Levitic priests and Israelites, and they are not to be fortified inside, and they are not to be fenced in with ropes, So that there will not be a foot of the Redeemer of Blood found there." (The laws of a murderer and the preservation of the soul, Chapter 8, Halacha 8).

Hence, in the Rambam's opinion, the laws of reading a scroll in a walled city in the 12th century are not related to and are not similar to the laws of a city of refuge. Therefore, the explanation given to Kaman, that a medium-sized city can or must be surrounded by a wall, is only required according to the opinion that regarding the reading of a scroll, the law of a walled city is equal to the law of walled cities with regard to other issues - sending lepers, confiscation of houses and a city of refuge. But if the scroll is a law by itself, there is no need to come to this explanation, but as stated, the fact that it was surrounded in the days of Joshua is sufficient.

Hence, there are different types of walled cities, and it is not necessary that the same definitions apply to walled cities for different purposes. Also, there are different types of doubts: there is doubt as to whether the city was indeed surrounded by a wall, and there is doubt as to whether the sea is defined as a wall. (Apparently, there may also be additional doubts).

The opinion of the Rabbinate

Rabbi David ben Zemara (about 1480 - 1570), one of the greatest scribes in the 16th century, wrote that in Hebron a scroll should only be read on the 14th day of Adar. He proves this mainly by relying on two reasons:

A - Both the Mishnah and the Midrash mention walled cities and Hebron is not mentioned among them:

Mishna Tractate Arakhin Chapter 9 Mishna 6:

A city whose roofs are walled and which is not surrounded by a wall since the days of Yehoshua ben Nun is not like the houses of walled cities. And these are the houses of the walled cities - three courtyards of two two houses surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, such as - the old kurta of birds and the study of Gush Halab and the old Yodefet and Gamla and Gadod and Hadid and Ono and Jerusalem and the like.

And also in the book Bahar (parasha 4, chapter 5) (with a significant addition):

And a person who sells a residential house in a walled city, can Efi' the walled enclosure come from and where? Tal Beit Moshav, a walled city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, and not that it was surrounded from here to hereafter. Whereas they are the houses of the walled cities: 3 hayfields of two houses that were surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, such as - the old kurta of Tzipori and the study of Gush Halab and Yorfat {Yodefat} the old woman and Gamla - in the mountains of Galilee, and Gadod - in the mountains west of the Jordan, and Harid {Hadid} and Ono and Jerusalem - in the mountains of Judah. Rabbi Ishmael B. Yossi said: He did not count except those that were Kidchum when the exiles came up, but the first ones were canceled because the land was empty.[2] ]

B - Hebron was a city of refuge, and apparently the city of refuge had no walls - based on the Gemara, without verses 9-10:

Mattani': Where is Golin? For the cities of refuge, for the third that is beyond the Jordan and for the third in the land of Canaan, as it is said: You shall give the three cities beyond the Jordan and the three cities you shall give in the land of Canaan, etc.

Cm: Rabbi Tanu: Moshe set apart three cities beyond the Jordan, and against them Joshua set apart in the land of Canaan, and their targets were like two lines in Kerem, Hebron in Judah against Betzer in the desert, Shechem on Mount Ephraim against Ramot in Gilead, Kadesh on Mount Naphtali against Golan in Bashan.

"And three" - that there be three triangles, that it be south of Hebron as Hebron to Nablus, and from Hebron to Nablus as Meshach to Kadesh, and from Nablus to Kadesh as a temple to the north.

In the past three Jordans, three Israel? Abey said: In Gilead it is common Murderers...

And what about Lika? And it says: And you will give them forty-two cities! Abey said: These perceive either knowingly or not knowing, those knowingly perceive, those without knowing they do not perceive.

And Hebron is a city of refuge? And the dictation: And they gave Hebron to the dog as Moses said!? (That is, Hebron is not a city of Levites but a city of Judah??)

Abey said: Pravda, the inscription: "And the field of the city and its courts were given to the dog son of Yafuna."

And sanctify a city of refuge? And the dictation: "And the cities of the fortress of the sides, Tzar, and Hamath, and Rakat, and Kinneret [etc.], and Kadesh, and Adri, and Ein Hazor," and he said: These cities, do not make them either small Tirins or large volumes, but medium-sized towns!

Rav Yosef said: I made you holy. Rabbi Ashi said: such as Selikum and Akra Deslikum."

The conclusion from this issue is that the center of the city of Hebron was a city of Levites and a city of refuge; while the pastures around the city were given to Caleb and the tribe of Judah.

Regarding Kadesh, the conclusion of the Gemara is that there were two Kadesh, one a city of refuge and one not. Whereas with regard to Hebron, the Gemara did not raise this possibility (because it was clear to everyone that there are not two Hebrons), but would rather have it be a central city and have its suburbs; The central city was a city of priests and Levites and a city of refuge, and the suburbs were a city of Judah.

(Apparently the Radbaz believed that the Gemara did not refer to the question of the wall in Hebron, but only asked about its handover to the tribe of Judah, due to the fact that in his opinion Hebron as a city of refuge was not surrounded by a wall, or that its wall was destroyed ("hidden") or was intended to be hidden, and all this on the assumption that Shir A medium-sized shelter cannot be surrounded by a wall, but below we propose a different interpretation, which is what this article will deal with.

It should be noted that it is not explicitly written that "medium-sized towns" are cities without a wall, and this will be discussed later in the article).

In Tractate Arkin Lag: The Gemara complicates the Halachah that was said about a city of refuge for a city of Levites:

The houses of the walled cities of the Levites, who is it with him? And the stipulation: these cities should not be made into small villages or large towns, but medium-sized towns!

Rav Kahana said, no question: here he was surrounded and finally he sat, here he sat and finally he was surrounded.

And the island of Guona, who is that wall? And the stipulation: And a man who will sell a residential house in a walled city - that was surrounded and finally occupied, and not occupied and finally surrounded.

(Hence, according to Rabbi Kahana, the city that "settled and was finally surrounded" has a wall in reality, but it is not called a walled city in relation to the city of Levites, and a city that sat and then was surrounded may be a city of Levites)

Another possibility was raised by Rabbi Yosef Baria Darev Sala Hasida Kamiya Darev Papa: such that they and their lots fell to them.

The Gemara insists on this:

Are they and a lot for mysterina existing? (Is the wall about to be destroyed?)

Oona Rabbi Ashi: Atarich, SDA: Adamsathari Misathari i Mizdavni Lichalto, KML. (That is, there was reason to say that until the walls are hidden a house that is sold will be decided, KML does not).

Therefore, according to the Gemara, there are situations in which a Levite city is surrounded by a wall: either it was settled and then surrounded, or the Levites received a city and a plot of land, or the walls are about to be hidden but (yet) have not been hidden, and therefore this wall is not considered a wall for the purposes of walled cities.

This whole discussion revolves around the laws of walled cities, but not necessarily about a scroll where the law could be that if the city was surrounded in the days of Joshua it was judged as surrounded regardless of the question of what was done afterwards.

In the following chapters, it seems that there is another explanation for the term "medium towns", as medium-sized walled cities. The custom practiced by Hebron - not according to the opinion of the Radvaz. In fact, the custom in Hebron was to read two days as sufficient, contrary to the opinion of the Radvaz, and many sources attest to this.

ֿ

Below are several sources:

Rabbi Gedaliah of Siamititz, who ascended to Israel with the caravan of Rabbi Yehuda Hassid (in 1700):

"And in Hebron, there are about forty Sephardic Jews who own houses, and they all live in one courtyard, and the Kobiyum Temple is also in this courtyard, and the Cave of the Double, which is duplicated in pairs, is right inside the city, and the scripture says, "The field and the cave... and all the trees that are in the field", meaning that the cave was in a field and not inside the city, but it is possible that the city of Hebron was a little far from the place where it is now, and it is found that this is the city of Hebron which was not surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua ben Nun because there was no city in that place but a field, and this is sufficient when reading the scroll on Purim Two days, on the 4th and 5th.

(Abraham Yaari, Travels in the Land of Israel, Ramat Gan 1976 p. 351)

According to him, it is clear that ancient Hebron was surrounded by a wall, but the Jewish quarter at the time is no longer within the boundaries of the ancient city. However, one could ask why the Jewish quarter does not have a "near and see" law; It is possible to explain that perhaps the inhabitants did not know the location of the ancient city, or thought that there was no law "near and visible" to a ruined city without a settlement.

Rabbi Moshe Hagiz, around 1720

"Hebron according to the fact that it was not surrounded by a wall from the time of Yehoshua ben Nun Korin the Megillah 24 and 22 (Parashat Ela Masai - Rabbi Moshe Hagiz, Jerusalem 2017 p. 17)

(Note - if according to him Hebron was not surrounded by a wall, why did they say two days? But it means there was doubt).

The traveler Moshe Haim Capsuto, 1734

The traveler from Italy Moshe Haim Capsuto visited Hebron in 1734 and testifies that "we celebrated Purim for three days, that is - Friday, Saturday and Sunday, with great merriment". The observance of the three days of Purim may only take place in a walled city from the 12th century, and indeed in 1734, the 14th of Adar falls on a Friday. [3]

The Hida - around the year 1750

The Hida, who lived in Hebron about 250 years ago, testifies that the custom in Hebron is to read two days. This is evidenced by two sources:

Brachi Yosef Orach Haim Siman Tarif letter D:

"Hebron is the city of our sanctification 122 He wrote the Radbaz in response to the sign of 1881, Dafshita Daina is surrounded by the death of Yehoshua and Corin in the 14th century. But an ancient custom to happen in it 14 and 15 is sufficient."

"Haim Sha'al" report, part 2, side note

"Bai'k Hebron 1922 is an ancient custom to read the scroll on the 14th and 15th, unlike the words of the Radvaz... and even though the Radvaz wrote that they should not be read except on the 14th, the custom is ancient to the contrary, and we need to give reason to the former Rabbanan Kaddish ' They used to. And there is a division between the houses of the walled cities for the reading of the Megillah, and you shall not be difficult from the Tos' and read carefully because I have shortened it."

Shaare Tshuva - Rabbi Chaim Mordechai Margaliot, year 1820:

Sha'ari Tshuva on Shu'a Och HaL' Megillah and Purim, Appendix, Section D:

"Va. Bari in the name of 500 Radvaz 70 that Hebron AHK Peshita Dayna is surrounded by the death of Yehoshua and Korin BID 14 A.S., but MenaC is early enough to happen every day."

Rashash - Rabbi Shmuel Strashon, mid 19th century (around 1850):

"I heard from one of the wise men of Jerusalem who is in Hebron Korin 27 2 of the 2nd days of Damascus that he has an island surrounded by a wall from the days of the 12th century." (Revisions of the Rashash, tractate Megillah, page 5, page 2)

Additional sources see: Rabbi Yehuda Zoldan: "For the history of the reading of the Megillah in the 12th of Adar in the modern land of Israel - an essay for receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy", Bar Ilan 1972, pp. 184-186.

On the customs of reading the scroll for two days in Hebron in the 20th century, see ibid on page 199 note 29. The custom of reading in Hebron for two days was also published in Rabbi Tokczynski's Tablet AI. For a detailed discussion of the customs of reading the Megillah in Kiryat Arba - see Zoldan, ibid., pp. 199-204)

Evidence of the custom of the old Yishuv community in Hebron - the beginning of the 20th century

"When Adar enters, they start preparing for Purim, which is usually celebrated in Hebron for two days, the fourteenth and fifteenth of it." (Rabbi Menachem Shmuel Salonim, great-grandson of rabbi Restach Rachel Salonim, Sefer Hebron, edited by Avishar 1978 p. 372)

How did the doubt about Hebron's status arise?

We saw above that all sources in the Bible testify that Hebron was surrounded by a wall. If so, how did the doubt arise?

As we know, the mitzvot of reading the scroll began in the Persian period. At that time the area of Hebron was occupied by the Adomites, and the population of the city was Adomite (and of course did not read the Megillah).

Hebron came under Jewish control after it was liberated by Yochanan Hyrcanus the Hasmonean in 111 BCE. After that the Reds converted and since then the population in the area has been Jewish. Indeed, during excavations in 2014 in Tel Hebron, a Jewish city was discovered, which included a residential area, industry and huge and impressive purification baths. The Jewish city existed until the Bar Kochba revolt (135 AD). The residents of this city knew the walls well and probably observed the Halacha and read a Megillah in Tu Badr.

After the Bar Kochba revolt, Jews were forbidden to live in Jerusalem and its surroundings. The settlement in Hebron was displaced. The Jews in the central Mount Yehuda area migrated south and established the belt of Jewish settlements in the south of Mount Hebron (such as Susia, Eshtamoe, Ma'on, Anim, etc.). There was also a Jewish settlement in West Judea (Yavna, Lod, etc.). The center of the Torah moved in various stages to the Galilee, where the sages of the Mishnah and Talmud led the Jewish spiritual life in the cities of Usha, Zipori, Beit Shaarim, Tiberias and more.

At the same time, the mishnayat and sayings of Sages about walled cities were changed, such as the mishnayat below:

Mishna Arakhin Chapter 9 Mishna 6:

A city whose roofs are walled and which is not surrounded by a wall since the days of Yehoshua ben Nun is not like the houses of walled cities and these are the houses of walled cities three yards of two two houses surrounded by a wall since the days of Yehoshua ben Nun such as the old short of birds and the study of Gush Halab and the old Yodeft and Gamla and Gadod and Hadid and Ono and Jerusalem and the like .

Babylonian Talmud Megillah D A:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Lod, Ono, and the Deaf Gorge have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Yehoshua ben Nun.

This list has been discussed by a number of researchers (see for example Zissou and Aden-Biovitz in the list of sources). Sages listed cities they knew - in the Galilee; Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi lived in Lod and listed the cities he knew around Lod, and Jerusalem was listed as the main Jewish symbol (even though it was not inhabited by Jews at this time).

The list represents the accepted wording of the three areas of the Jewish settlement - Judea, Transjordan and the Galilee (Mishna Shiviyat 12, inscriptions 13 and more).

Jews continued to come and pray in the Cave of the Patriarchs, but the ancient city of Hebron was not inhabited by Jews during the period of the Mishna and the Talmud and was not counted. (See in detail Arnon TASHAF 226-231, 234-264).

When the Jewish settlement was renewed in Hebron, after the Byzantine period, it was renewed in the valley, near the Cave of the Patriarchs. The ancient mound was abandoned, and the remains of the walls in the ancient mound were covered with dirt and rubble. However, both the sources in the Bible, the remnants of the walls that were still visible on the surface, and the echo of the historical memory were preserved, and therefore the reading of the scroll continued like cities surrounded by walls. However, the custom of reading the scroll two days began, as in the provided cities.

Why did the doubt arise?

It seems that the doubt arose during the Talmud period, about 1500 years after Joshua, when the question was raised (stated in Tractate Arkhin Ld.) whether the ancient wall was destroyed ("hidden") to make Hebron a city of refuge, and the hypothesis was raised that already at the time of Joshua's conquest the wall "was intended to be hidden" ", and therefore the city is not considered a city surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun (according to the language of the additions there - "Since they deserve not to have a wall, the sanctity of the wall that was there before will not benefit them, and woe to her as if it had never been there".)

At that time there was no longer a Jewish settlement in Hebron. Later, when the settlement in the city was renewed, the residents of Old Hebron could no longer know whether the wall was indeed standing in its place, or was hidden, or was about to be hidden; That is why the community in Hebron used to call two days sufficient, like the cities provided in the Gemara.

This custom was preserved throughout the generations, until the days of the Hida, which indicates the ancient custom that was preserved even in the days of his grandfather, Rabbi Avraham Azulai, who received this information from generations before him. For this reason, the words of the Radbaz were not accepted as Halacha and the community continued its ancient custom.

Was the wall really destroyed ("hidden")?

As we know, in any case of doubt, the doubt only exists until it is possible to find out. After that, if the doubt has been clarified, the Halacha acts in accordance with reality. In the words of Rabbi Meir Schlesinger, head of Yeshiva Sha'aliv, "The definition of the house of doubt is decided according to the probabilistic judgment, and after the house of doubt is determined, the decision of the doubt is according to the sides of the halachic factors, and if there is no prohibition there, it is permissible. In any case, when there is no doubt, there are no decisive parties according to halachic factors." ("Realistic Probability and Halachic Aspects in Deciding a Doubt", Sha'ali Daat 4 5766 p. 13).

Therefore, as long as the doubt existed it was indeed correct to behave as the previous custom. But now it can be said that the doubt no longer exists, and in any case the halachic ruling also returns to the source of the halacha.[4]

Below we will briefly review the Tel Hebron excavation findings and what has changed following the latest excavations in 2014.

Excavations were conducted at Tel Hebron by five expeditions:

Prof. Philip Hammond (P.C. Hammond) excavated the mound in 1964-1966. Hammond's main find was the great wall which he called "the cyclopean wall" - the wall of the giants that was discovered in the south of the mound. the wall It was dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Ancestral Period).

Dr. Avi Ofer excavated Tel Hebron in the years 1985-1986. He dug a trench across the mound and discovered a large Jewish city from the days of the First Temple. He also discovered a letter written on pottery from the Canaanite period (period of the patriarchs).

The late Yuval Peleg, from the archeology team at IOSH, excavated in the months of August-September 1998 a small patch of land in the west/center of the mound, a salvage excavation in which a burial cave rich in finds from the Late Bronze Age (the end of the Canaanite period, on the eve of the Israeli settlement) was discovered.

Emanuel Isenberg, a member of the Antiquities Authority, conducted two seasons of rescue excavation in the months of April-September and October-November 1999 over 500 square meters in the north-central part of the mound. The excavation revealed a fortified wall and residences from the Early Bronze Age ) a silo from the Iron Age 1, a house of four spaces from the Israeli period and wine cellars from the Byzantine period.

Emanuel Isenberg and Prof. David Ben Shlomo excavated in 2014 in 'Plots 52-53' in the south of the hill, under the auspices of the Archeology Committee, the Antiquities Authority and Ariel University. The excavation revealed a residential and industrial quarter from the Second Temple period with two large mikvahs. In the excavation further along the southern wall ( "The Wall of the Giants") another section of the wall with a length of about 100 m was uncovered. Towers and fortifications from the period of the Kingdom of Judah were discovered along the wall. The results of this discovery led to a clear conclusion: the Canaanite wall from the time of Yehoshua ben Nun was not destroyed, nor were there any breaches in it, but on the contrary : The wall was strengthened with towers and the city was fortified. This wall continued to function as the city wall until the end of the First Temple (586 BCE).

The results of the excavations at Tel Hebron and the customs of reading the scroll in Kiryat Arba - Hebron

As mentioned, the ancient walls were discovered for the first time in the excavations of P. Hammond in the years 1964-1966. They were dated by the American excavator to the period of the ancestors (about 4000 years ago). It was not possible to know whether these walls also existed in the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, and anyway, in the period This, under the Jordanian occupation, was not a Jewish settlement in Hebron and in any case the discovery of the walls and their dating did not affect the custom of reading the scroll.

The renewal of the Jewish settlement in Hebron in our time began in stages, initially in distant circles around Tel Hebron (the administration and Kiryat Arba), then continued in a close circle - Beit Hadassah and the Avraham Avinu neighborhood. Throughout the entire period, the custom was to read the Megillah two sufficient days, as was the practice of the ancient community (and as we mentioned above).

In 1974, settlement was renewed in the heart of the ancient city - in Tel Hebron, in the neighborhood of "Edmet Yishai". Since then, there was no longer a need to resort to the laws of "close and see", because in 25 B.C. the ancient city itself was already inhabited by Jews. At the same time, more archaeological excavations were conducted, more and more finds were discovered, and Tel Hebron began to reveal more and more of its north. However, the doubt continued to exist, that the wall intended to be hidden was not called a wall.

But in 2014 this doubt was also allowed. It became clear that the previous wall was neither hidden nor destroyed, nor was it about to be hidden, but on the contrary - strengthened and strengthened.

The results of the 2014 excavations at Tel Hebron clearly showed that the wall from the Middle Bronze Age (the Canaanite city wall) that was exposed in the south of the hill (the one Hammond called the "Cyclope wall" - giant wall) remained in place even after the Israeli settlement, and continued to serve as the city wall throughout the Israeli period (Iron Age) until the destruction of the city during the Babylonian occupation (586 BCE).

The findings from the new excavations at Tel Hebron clearly indicate the continuity of use of the fortification from the Middle Bronze Age to the end of the Iron Age. These findings are clear evidence of the continued use in the Iron Age of the Bronze Age fortifications. The excavation actually revealed the last phase, from the end of the Iron Age, of this use. The new evidence confirmed the opinion put forward following the previous excavations regarding the long continuity of use of the fortification.[5]

The Canaanite wall existed for about a thousand years, until the end of the First Temple. In order to strengthen and maintain the wall, they added, in the days of the First Temple, a grace and a tower. The last stage in the wall was the addition of a sloping rampart at the end of the First Temple. Layers of dirt were also poured in diagonal layers for the purpose of draining the water and preventing the undermining of the wall which was about 10 m high, perhaps in the days of Hezekiah.

The latest pottery from the filling of the retaining wall and the slipway date to the Iron Age 2b-3 (8th-7th centuries BC).

In addition to the evidence emerging from the wall itself, written findings from the period of the Kingdom of Judah were also discovered. Already in the excavations of Avi Ofer, important findings from the time of King Hezekiah were discovered: imprints of a seal "To the King of Hebron" on the handles of storage jars. In all the imprints the symbol with the two wings appears, and in two inscribed imprints the name of Hebron is mentioned (in the missing spelling - Hevran).[6]

In the 2014 excavations in the vicinity of the wall and fortification from the Iron Age, a Hebrew impression seal of the type common in the Iron Age 2b-3 (8th century BC) was discovered, with the name "Lashepatihu (son) Samach" on it. The two names, Shepatihu and Samach, are mentioned several times in the Bible and in epigraphy.

The seal is made of limestone, its shape is oval and a hole is drilled throughout for hanging or holding in a ring. The face of the seal is worn, but despite this it is possible to restore all its letters. The seal is divided into three surfaces by horizontal lines. On the upper surface was carved the figure of a deer from a thicket. On the other two surfaces, the words were engraved: "Leshapatihu (son) Samk". It turns out that the owner of the seal had an administrative role in the government system in the city during the Kingdom of Judah.[7]

Another Hebrew document discovered in the 2014 excavations is an ostracon in ancient Hebrew writing. The ostracon is faded and it can be distinguished by a few letters, but enough to determine with certainty that this is a list of personal names ending in "Jehovah" common in the Kingdom of Judah. One of the names can be reconstructed with a high degree of plausibility as "Emtiahu". Lists of such personal names are known from other sites in Judea, and they were used in the civil and military administration system. In both finds, the language and script are Hebrew, and have normal characteristics in the kingdom of Judah at the end of the 8th century BC, when Hebron was a regional administrative center. Petiyahu ben Samach, the owner of the seal, probably played a role in this system.[8]

(On the wall and the fortification, see in detail in the book by Emanuel Isenberg and David Ben Shlomo - "Tel Hebron - Excavations 2014", published at Ariel University.

E. Ei senberg, D. Ben-Shlomo, 2017.

The Tel Ḥevron 2014 Excavations

Chapter 4, pp. 67-100 and especially pp. 78-87).

Also in the explanatory notes of the Antiquities Authority on the explanatory page for Tel Hebron the following explanation appears:

"During the Israeli period (1000-586 BCE), the wall was strengthened with "towers" built near the Canaanite wall. A few meters in front of the Canaanite wall, a remnant of a sloping wall can be identified that was built to strengthen it and perhaps also used as a "slippery wall" (a sloping wall adjacent to the wall intended to prevent the enemy from breaching it). To the south of the Canaanite wall is a remnant of another wall that was built in the 7th century BCE and may be part of a fortification system built after the Assyrian invasion of the Kingdom of Judah at the end of the 8th century BCE.

This finding corresponds to what is said in the Bible about Rehoboam (in the source quoted above), who strengthened Hebron and its fortifications, and put into it treasures of food, oil and wine. Additional findings - including the famous seals with the inscription "To the King of Hebron" in ancient Hebrew script - prove that Hebron was indeed a central city in Judah and had pottery making factories and royal storehouses. As mentioned, two additional finds of ancient Hebrew writing from this period were discovered near the wall.

The conclusion from this is that the assumptions (or doubts) that the wall was destroyed after the Israeli occupation, or that the wall was going to be hidden to allow Hebron to function as a city of refuge - have been ruled out.

If so, the question arises again - how can one explain the halacha practiced in Hebron regarding the reading of the scroll, and whether the new discoveries have consequences for the reading of the scroll in Hebron nowadays.

Has the wall been hidden in every city of refuge?

We discussed this topic above, but now to complete the picture, we will present it again: Let's look again during the Gemara discussing the laws of a city of refuge: the main discussion regarding a city of refuge is in tractate Mechot (page 9 12 - 11 11):

lumbar'. Where is Golin? For the cities of refuge, for the third that is beyond the Jordan and for the third in the land of Canaan, as it is said: You shall give the three cities beyond the Jordan and the three cities you shall give in the land of Canaan, etc. Until three were chosen in the Land of Israel, there were no three before the Jordan receiving, as it is said: There shall be six cities of refuge, until there are six receiving as one. And roads are directed to them from one to the other, as it is said: Prepare for you the road and three, etc...

etc. Let our Rabbi: Moshe set apart three cities beyond the Jordan, and against them Joshua set apart in the land of Canaan, and their targets were like two lines in Karam, Hebron in Judah against Betzer in the desert, Shechem on Mount Ephraim against Ramot in Gilead, Kadesh on Mount Naphtali against Golan in Bashan. And the three - that it be triangular, that it be south of Hebron as Hebron to Nablus, and from Hebron to Nablus as Nablus to Kadesh, and from Nablus to Kadesh as a temple to the north.... and that Lika? And it says: And you will give them forty-two cities! Abey said: These perceive either knowingly or not knowing, those knowingly perceive, those without knowing they do not perceive.

And Hebron is a city of refuge? And he dictated: "And they gave Hebron to the dog when Moses said"! Abey said: Pravda, the inscription: "And the field of the city and its courts were given to the dog son of Yafna."

And sanctify a city of refuge? And the dictation: "And the cities of the fortress of the sides, Tzar, and Hamath, and Rakat, and Kinneret [etc.], and Kadesh, and Adri, and Ein Hazor," and he said: These cities, do not make them either small Tirins or large volumes, but medium-sized towns! Rav Yosef said: I made you holy. Rav Ashi said: Such as Selikum and Akra Deslikum.

Gopa: these cities, they should not be made small towns or large towns, but medium-sized towns; And they don't put them back except in a place of water, and if there is no water there - water is brought to them; And they do not sell them except in the place of markets; And they will not resettle them except instead of a population, when their populations dwindle - they add to them, when their dwellings dwindle - bring them Levite and Israelite priests; And they do not sell in them either sex tools or fortress tools, the words of Rabbi Nehemiah, and the sages of Mytirin; And that there is no forsin in the contents of castles, and there are no ropes in the contents, so that the foot of the redeemer of blood is not found there."

If so, the conclusion of the Gemara is that there is no doubt about Hebron because part (the center of the city) was surrounded by a wall, and the suburbs of the city around were dispersed. The walled part was a city of Levites and a city of refuge, while the outer part of the city - the suburbs - was given to Caleb and the tribe of Judah. Hence, the walled part was a city of refuge.

And regarding the Megillah - in all parts of Hebron, including the suburbs of the city, they read the Megillah in the 20th century, because they are "near and visible" to the part surrounded by a wall.

Another discussion appears in the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Arakhin, page Lev, page 1-2:

"And these are the houses of the walled cities, etc. Tana: Gamla in Galilee, and Gadion beyond the Jordan, and Hadid and Una and Jerusalem in Judah." May comer?

Abey said, the most comer: Ad Gamla in the Galilee, Ad Gadot beyond the Jordan, and Hadid and Ono and Jerusalem in Judea.

Rava said: Gamla - in the Galilee, Lapoki Gamla two countries, Gadod - west of the Jordan, Lapoki Gadod two countries, you are not in a state of poverty, you will not be afraid of her.

And Jerusalem, who decides on it? And the stipulation: Ten things were said in Jerusalem, the house is not intoxicated with it! Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Like Jerusalem - it has been surrounded by a wall since the death of Yehoshua ben Nun, and not like Jerusalem - if Jerusalem does not have the Temple attached to it, while here the Temple has attached to them. Rav Ashi said, didn't Rav Yosef say: Are you holy? H.N. Teri Yerushalayim

The Gemara asked about Kadesh and Hebron, and gave different answers: for Kadesh it answered that there were two cities named Kadesh, and for Hebron - it was clear that there were not two cities named Hebron - it answered, as we saw above, that there was a division between the city and the suburbs.

With regard to the Levite cities, the Baryat states in Arkin LB:

The priests and the Levites are known forever and redeemed forever. TL: Salvation of the world will be for the Levites - what is the TL? ... According to what was said: And the house that is in the city that has a permanent wall stands up, can this also do so? Tal: World redemption will be for the Levites.

The Hag'm Maksha Mabarita in the tractate of Mecca (Tosefta Makhot 3 8, Babili Makhot 11, Yerushalmi Makhot 2 6) - from the Halachah that was said about the city of refuge:

Walled city houses for the Levites who is it with him? And the stipulation: these cities should not be made into small villages or large towns, but medium-sized towns!

Rav Kahana said, no question: here he was surrounded and finally he sat, here he sat and finally he was surrounded.

And the island of Guona, who is that wall? And the stipulation: And a man who sells a house in a walled city - that was surrounded and finally settled, and not that he sat and finally surrounded.

Hence, according to Rabbi Kahana, a place that "settled and was finally surrounded" does not have a definition of a walled city, and a city that sat and then was surrounded may be a Levite city even if it has a wall. The Gemara rejects Rav Kahane's excuse by stating that a wall that was previously seated is not considered a wall. But as explained above, it can be said that the same city is not called a walled city with regard to the city of Levites and a city of refuge, but it is called a walled city for the purpose of reading the Megillah. Therefore, there was a discussion about the reading of the Megillah only if the sea was considered a wall and there was no discussion if it was surrounded and finally sat because in reality when there is a wall it is the determining thing about the Megillah.

Another possibility was brought up by Rabbi Yosef Baria Darb Sala Hasida Kamiya Darb Papa: such as they and their lots fell to them. That is, that the Levites received a city and a lot for their possession, and therefore there is a Levite city surrounded by a wall.

Hence, according to Rav Yosef, if the Levites received a city and a plot of land there is a reality of a Levite city surrounded by a wall.

The Gemara insists on this:

Are they and a lot for mysterina existing? (Is the wall about to be destroyed?)

Oona Rabbi Ashi: Atarich, SDA: Adamsathari Misathari i Mizdavni Lichalto, KML. (That is, there was reason to say that until the walls are hidden a house that is sold will be decided, KML does not).

Hence, the Gemara recognizes situations in which a Levite city exists surrounded by a wall: either it was inhabited and then surrounded, or the Levites received a city and a plot of land. Rabbi Ashi adds to this that it is possible that the walls are about to be hidden but have not (yet) been hidden. As mentioned above, it can be said that this discussion does not concern the reading of a scroll but property laws in a walled city. [9]

What are "medium-sized towns (or cities)"?

As mentioned above, we saw above that the laws of reading a scroll are not necessarily related to the laws of a city of refuge, and the Gemara referred to the question "is the sea called a wall" in the matter of reading a scroll, and it is possible that the law is different with regard to other details as well. But now the law will be clarified even if it is said that there is a similarity between the laws of reading a scroll and the laws of a city of refuge.

As mentioned above, in Bereita the expression "medium-sized towns (or cities)" appears as a parallel expression to "cities of refuge". Generally, it was interpreted as unwalled cities:

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Mechot 11

Gopa: these cities, they should not be made small towns or large towns, but medium-sized towns; And they don't put them back except in a place of water, and if there is no water there - water is brought to them; And they do not sell them except in the place of markets; And they will not resettle them except instead of a population, when their populations dwindle - they add to them, when their dwellings dwindle - bring them Levite and Israelite priests; And they do not sell in them either sex tools or fortress tools, the words of Rabbi Nehemiah, and the sages of Mytirin; And that there is no forsin in the contents of citadels, and there is no mafislin for the contents of ropes, so that the foot of the redeemer of blood is not found there. R. Yitzchak: Why did he call? And he went to one of the cities of the living God, and he served her from the hands of Dathoi, and she left him.

The Gemara also discusses this phrase and its meaning in tractate Arakhin (discussed above):

Babylonian Talmud Tractate Arakhin page 10 page 2

And the stipulation: these cities should not be made into small villages or large towns, but medium-sized towns! Rav Kahana said, no question: here he was surrounded and finally he sat, here he sat and finally he was surrounded. And the island of Guona, who is that wall? And the stipulation: And a man who sells a residential house in a walled city - which was surrounded and finally occupied, and not occupied and finally surrounded; Can even the kippah Israel? It is said here a wall and it is said hereafter a wall, what follows star worshipers, also here star worshipers; Can even the kifwa star workers after that? It is said below a wall and it is said here a wall, what follows star workers before, even here star workers before! Translated by Rabbi Yosef Baria Derv Sala Hasida Kamiya Derv Papa: As they fell to them and their lands. Both and a plot for his mystery exists! Rav Ashi said: Estarich, SDA: Adamsatari Mastari i Mizdavni Lichalto, KML.

As mentioned, the accepted interpretation is that a "medium-sized town" is a town without a wall, therefore if it had a wall it would have been necessary to break it down. But upon further examination, it appears that in this expression there is no clear provision regarding the contradiction of the wall; It is possible that according to the clear and accepted meaning of the words it indicates the size of the city, and we will refer to this below.

Does a "medium-sized city" have to be a city without a wall?

The seer of lights - Rabbi Kook ztzel, whose light came and went from the Hebron residents, provided a solution to the question. According to him, a medium-sized city of refuge may and even must be surrounded by a wall; The halacha that a city of refuge cannot be surrounded by a wall concerns only large volumes.

This is the language of Rabbi Kook in his consent to the book "Nefesh Chaya" by Rabbi Reuven Margaliot (the quote is from the Tel Aviv edition of 2014. The consent bears the date 21 Elul 1981):

"The MALM's difficulty with the laws of the murderer of the 8th century compared to the words of the columnist who wrote "Three cities shall distinguish you" - that strong and fortified cities were, that the prohibition is not only to make them large volumes, but if they are small and do not have a large population there is no prohibition to surround them with a strong wall; Except that through them the gates of a fortress would have made rather large volumes and not medium-sized towns. Therefore, when they are called in the verse "fortified cities" they were large, (cf. Maktoh 10 and Arakhin 3) that it is impossible for them to be cities of refuge because of the greatness of the fortress that many come there as they did in Makhdoh there, but certainly when distinguishing medium-sized cities it is appropriate to make it strong and protected Before the Redeemer of Blood, that he may not come in an army to pursue the murderer, and I am benign in the words of Ba'al Tori and in the seat of the Mishna to the King. And the Rambam's words, which are according to the language of the Gemm, are also precise that both of them together are forbidden to be volumes and large, then many are found there most, and they are given in honor of a Redeemer the blood; But when they are medium-sized towns, it is not enough that there is no prohibition, but that there is also an obligation to surround them with a wall in a way against the redeemer of blood, as Baal Tori explained." [10]

The Rabbi relied on the words of "Baal Torim" on the verse-

וקִֽי יִהְ֥ה איש֙ ְׂ֣א לרִ֔ה וְרב לו֙ וְק֣ם אל֔יו וִקּ֥ה נ֖פשח ומ֑ת ונ֕ס אל אחַ֖ת הְר֥ים הֽל. (Deuteronomy 19:11)

On this the "Baal Torim" interprets: the cities of God. To say that there were strongholds and fortress cities that the redeemer of blood did not come against them in an army.

Hence, according to "Baal Tory", a city of refuge must be strong and fortified, to prevent the redeemer of blood from coming in force and murdering the asylum seeker. Such protection must be based on the existence of a wall and a gate where those entering the city can be monitored. Indeed, a "gate" to Hebron is mentioned both in the days of Abraham and in the days of David (as we have shown in the verses above). In fact, a gate in the city of refuge is also mentioned in Joshua 24: He opened the city and spoke in the ears of the elders of the city his words and gathered the people of the city to God and gave them a home and Jesus with them.

The Rabbi found the explanation and distinction between large cities and medium-sized cities, and wrote that they must be fortified in order to fulfill their purpose as cities of refuge.

In his words, the Rabbi referred to the words of the "Mishna to the King" about the Rambam (The Laws of a Murderer and the Protection of the Soul 88).

These are the words of Rambam:

"Cities of refuge are not to be made into large towns, nor large towns, nor small towns, but medium-sized towns, and they are not to be resettled except in the place of markets and in the place of water, and if there is no water there, let's put water in it, and they are not to be resettled except instead of inhabiting them, their inhabitants will be reduced, we will add to them, their housing will be reduced, they will be put in. There are Levite and Israeli priests inside, and there is no Porsin inside the citadels and there is no Mphisilin inside the ropes, so that the foot of the Redeemer of Blood is not found there."

It should be noted that the Rambam does not specifically mention a wall; the "Mishna Lemelech" interprets that a "volume" is surrounded by a wall (whether large or small) and a "city" (or town) is not surrounded.

And on this the "Mishna to the King" explains:

"Simplifying the words of our late Rabbi, we see that villages are those that are not surrounded by a wall and that volumes are those that are surrounded by a wall. And what he wrote "and not small" for towns and villages (that is, there is a possibility that both towns that are not surrounded and villages that are surrounded will be large or small). And it also seems from Matani' Darish Megillah, 4 "Karach" means to be surrounded by a wall and "city" to be surrounded by a wall. (And so Rabbi 19 in the chapter Batra Davrekot Ya'ash).

And what our rabbi wrote, "except for medium-sized towns" - according to what we wrote, it seems to be clear to them: (also) that it should not be surrounded by a wall, and also that it should be medium-sized. But what he wrote "and neither large nor small volumes" is difficult for this, which means that it is neither large nor small (that is, volumes surrounded by a wall can be neither large nor small), but medium even though it is a benign volume.

Later the Viceroy writes:

And according to the law, the cities of refuge are not to be surrounded by a wall. And this is explained in the S.P. Batra Derchin "Walled cities for the Levites, who are they? And the condition is that these cities are not to be made into small villages or large towns, but medium-sized towns" Akal. And let's see what they did in the PB Damkot (page 10) and he consecrated a city of refuge. And the spelling and fortress cities, etc., and Kadesh, and Adrei, and Ein Hazor, and Tanya, these cities are not made into large towns, etc. And I saw to Rashi there that he interpreted "and fortified cities" - large volumes that were in the possession of Naphtali, etc., "it seems that DSL Dakoshit HaGemara is because Dakdesh was a large city. And I didn't know - is this a hint? Damshom is a fortified city, it doesn't have to be a big city! But The correct thing is what we wrote, Deir Mbatser is the one that is surrounded by a wall like "the people in the fortresses are in the fortresses" as well as "all these are cities in shapes", and a city that is surrounded by a wall should not be made a city of refuge, it is a good place to be. And what we have detailed in our Rabbi's words should also be detailed in the Lishna Dobarita, Daktani "and not vols. large, but medium-sized towns", Dam Shem, a volume of instruction on the walled island of Iria, large, even medium-sized, Nami, no. In the end, I could not settle the grammar of the language of Bariata and the late Dervino.

If so, the viceroy remains in difficulty, and in any case, the simple understanding of Rambam's words is that a medium city of refuge can (but does not have to) be surrounded by a wall.

Despite his words, the conclusion of the viceroy is - that the law is true law and the gates of refuge are not surrounded.

The author of "Aruch Lenar" (Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger, one of the last Magdoli about 200 years ago) in the treatise Mechot page 1, page 1, discussed the above-mentioned "Mishna Lemelech" and wrote that there was indeed a reality of a medium-sized city surrounded by a wall to protect against the redeemer of blood:

"There was a pashita for the Shas that they would not surround a wall to make a city in the form of only a large city that is a place of markets, i.e. vol. But a medium-sized city that Korin is just a city and almost a village would not be from Kippin.

...and it is possible that the Levites' encirclement after it was given to them is not even large, because of the redeemers of blood that they will not come against the city in force, and for this reason they are not to be settled except in the place of a population that will not come in force against the city, and if it is not in such a way they will be killed immediately before Shiba Ezer . Yes, it is possible that for this reason they also surrounded a small city, just as they were used to surrounding a large city with markets from the enemy. And for PZ, all the difficulties of the MLM are explained."

If so, according to Aruch Lener Karach is a large city (and it was probably surrounded by a wall), so the GM asked about Kadesh being a fortified city and anyway the assumption was that it was surrounded by a wall.

And he settles, that the Levites did not give a large city (and it is clear that the meaning is one surrounded by a wall), so the excuse is that it settled and was finally surrounded, that they received a medium-sized city and then surrounded.

According to Aruch Laner, the Gemara rejected Rav Kahana's argument (that it sat down and was finally established) only with regard to a city of refuge, but with regard to the Megillah, it can be surrounded by a wall (and this is what the Rabbi's words revolved around).

In his opinion, the entire discussion in the Tractate of Values is about the cities of the Levites, and regarding this the Viceroy retracted, but there is no reason to retract regarding the reading of the Megillah.

It follows from his words that a city of refuge can be surrounded by a wall for protection, and if the Levites were given a medium-sized city - they surrounded it. And according to what we explained above, if it was finally encircled, they left the wall because this wall is not called a wall in terms of the sanctity of Levitic cities, but it is called a wall for reading a scroll.

If so, Hebron is a medium-sized city that was surrounded by a wall (and the Jews did strengthen the wall like the words of Aruch to the candle).

In a similar direction, "Dobb Mishrim" also went (Part 1, Siman Ma):[11]

"Yalum 11 according to what the Malam in the Ph. of God said, the killer [ibid.] Marshi Zal in Mekkot [1 1 1 4 5 and cities], indeed, large and surrounded cities are not allowed to be cities of refuge, but medium-sized ones are even surrounded Sheri Ayyan there, according to the raids of the Ba'ath Niha, Dashpir was allowed to be surrounded if they were not large.

Hence, according to all the methods we have mentioned here, a medium-sized city of refuge could (and in the opinion of the Rabbi, even must) be surrounded by a wall to protect against the Redeemer of Blood. If so, this was the reality in Hebron, as the archaeological finds have proven.

(For the definition of "medium-sized city", we note that the area of the ancient city of Hebron is about 40 dunams. For comparison, the area of Tel Beer Sheva is about 11 dunams, the area of Tel Gezer is about 150 dunams, the area of ancient Hazor is about 800 dunams, and the area surrounded by the wall is about - 120 dunams).

God This opinion, that Hebron was a medium-sized city of refuge surrounded by a wall is another explanation and answer to the question - how is it possible that Hebron was also surrounded by a wall, both a city of Levites and a city of refuge?

As we have seen above, there are several answers to this: a - there is a division between the city and the suburbs (as the Gemara explains in Makto 10), b - Hebron was a city that sat down and was finally surrounded, according to Rav Kahana (Arakhin 3:3), c - a medium city of refuge can or It should be surrounded by a wall, according to the opinions presented above - of Baal Tori as explained by Rabbi Kook; then it was said that Hebron - as a medium-sized city - was surrounded by a wall, (and indeed all the medium-sized cities of refuge were surrounded.)

In light of all of the above, it seems clear today that the city of Hebron was indeed surrounded by a wall in the days of Yehoshua ben Nun; this wall was neither hidden nor destroyed, but continued to function throughout the entire Israeli period - the time of Yehoshua ben Nun, the judges, and the monarchy. As a medium-sized city, the city could have been used Also as a city of refuge and a city of priests, in addition to being the capital of Judah.

Hence the conclusion regarding the reading of a scroll is clear. However, the ancient custom of reading in Hebron for two days will not change. If the rabbis who decide the Halacha (and the writers of these lines are not among them) deem it appropriate, the change may only be in the change of days, that is - the 15th is the certain day while the 14th is the provided day. There is a precedent on this issue as well - the ruling of Rabbi Kook z'atzal on the issue of the "Beit Vagan" neighborhood in Jerusalem, a question that was asked when this neighborhood had not yet been annexed to the city, then the rabbi ruled to read two days, and the second day is the main one:

Rabbi Kook's answer to the question of reading the scroll in Beit Vegan:

Shavat Orah Mishpat Orah Haim Siman Kemo Halkhot Megillah

25 AHK Jerusalem Tuvba 13 Adar 2015.

When the question of the permanence of reading the Megillah in Beit Vagan was brought before me, I stood by the research and it became clear to me that as long as Jerusalem is not connected to buildings within seventy cubits and shiirs, it is judged as the supplied cities, such as Hebron, Tiberias, etc. A blessing, and a blessing, and the main part of her Purim is even now a blessing. And see, in the 8th day of the above-mentioned day.

Concluding remarks

The city of Hebron has been waiting for many years for the revelation of its spiritual and historical virtues and virtues. In our generation, we were blessed with the beginning of the renewal of the Jewish settlement in the city of Avot, and then also the beginning of the discovery of Tel Hebron and its unique findings.

It seems that now is the time to renew the ancient and unique laws that were practiced in Hebron, including clarifying the nature of the city as surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, the symbol of the beginning of the Hebrew settlement in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the ancient wall in Tel Hebron is today right in the heart of a Jewish settlement, standing as it did thousands of years ago and brilliantly expressing the oldest roots of the Jewish people in their land.

It is impossible to ignore the clear picture that stands in front of every visitor to the place, and therefore the essence of Hebron must be discussed according to the reality that we were privileged to discover in our generation.

A hint of a renewed understanding from the ancient tradition of the ancestors can be seen in the words of the Sages quoted above - (Babili Arakhin, page Lev, pages 1-2, as well as Megillah 12):

lumbar'. A city whose roofs are walled, and which has not been surrounded by a wall since the days of Yehoshua ben Nun - is not like the houses of walled cities. And these are the houses of the walled cities: three courtyards of two houses surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, such as the old kurta of Tzipori, and the study of Gush Halab, and the old Yodafat, and Gamla, and Gadod, and Hadid, and Una, and Jerusalem, and the like.

Tana: Gamla in Galilee, and a regiment beyond the Jordan, and Hadid and Una and Jerusalem in Judea.

Abey said, the most comer: Ad Gamla in the Galilee, Ad Gadot beyond the Jordan, and Hadid and Ono and Jerusalem in Judea. Rava said: Gamla - in the Galilee, Lapoki Gamla two countries, Gadod - west of the Jordan, Lapoki Gadod two countries, you are not in a state of poverty, you will not be afraid of her. ...

Tania, Rabbi Ishmael bar Rabbi Yossi: Why did the sages list these? When the children of the exiles came up they found these and Kidchum, but they canceled the firsts because the sanctity of the land was nullified. Kasbar: The first holiness sanctified for her time and did not sanctify for the future.

And Raminhi, Rabbi Ishmael Bar Yossi: And these were the only ones? And isn't it already said: Sixty cities are placed in each region of Argov, all of these are cities in shapes! But why did the sages list these? When the children of the exiles went up, they found these and Kidchum; Kidchum? ! but from a speech; and not only these, but whatever tradition comes to you in your hand from your forefathers that is surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun - all these mitzvahs are practiced."

It seems that it is precisely Hebron that the sage's words allude to - "Anything that comes up in your hand is a tradition from your ancestors that is surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun";

In Hebron this is indeed a "tradition from your ancestors" in the literal sense of the Bible, and now it has returned and is resurfacing to us.

In this context, the words of the "Chazon Ish" should also be cited:

In the din of the Bnei Karakhs who read in the 14th they said in the Yerushalmi they left it, it seems that it was mistaken and read; but he read deliberately in the 14th, the Sages obliged it to happen in the 15th as well... If a man says, read in the 14th and not in the 15th, we will not listen to him, DAK You cancel time volumes. (Chazon Ish Orach Haim, Siman Keng Sai 2 4th in the Din).

May we be privileged to make some kind of contribution to the study of Eretz Yisrael and Hebron, the city of the ancestors, and aim at the truth of the Torah.

Rabbi Ido Alba's comments

It is not clear how Rabbi Kook's explanation fits with the Gemara in Arkin Lag, because from there it follows that Rav Kahana's opinion was rejected, and according to the Gemara's conclusion, there is no possibility that a wall will remain for the city of refuge?

Indeed, Rabbi Kook's words are somewhat similar to the words of Aruch Laner in Mekkot 11:11, except that he believes that all judgment in a city of refuge is based on the size of the city and not on the wall, and he explained that the Gemara's question in Arakhin, "But the houses of walled cities for the Levites, who are they with him?" A big city, and the towns that Joshua conquered were big cities. But the excuse of the Aruch Lener is incomprehensible, because there is no logical reason for it to be clear to the Gemara that only large cities were surrounded, and also from the Gemara's question "They and their lots for the misterinho exist" it is proven that the problem lies in the existence of the wall (22 Hazo'a Och Kang SKA 4 Therefore, the very explanation of Rabbi Kook is not understood as to how it fits with the Gemara in Arkin lg.

(Answer: The NAD does not have to say that Rav Kahane's opinion was rejected, but rather additional options were put forward for the answer regarding "I'm a mother's problem", and in fact it seems to be the same from the words of "Gevorot Ari" in the words of Rabbi Elba Lakman. NA)

It is not understood why Rabbi Kook decided to read BID without a blessing and BTU with a blessing. After all, if he has doubts, Rambam and the Shoah ruled that he must To read the 10th with a blessing and therefore he will bless the 10th, and after he has already read how can he recite the 10th with a blessing after he has already fulfilled his duty by reading the 10th, and is not obligated by the mitzvah? And if he has no doubt, will he read only in the Jewish Orthodox Church?

In regard to the difficulty from the Gemara on the reality that, as you brought, it appears from the findings from the year 1744 that Hebron remained fortified during the days of the First Temple because they even added fortifications to its wall, Y'l Dish Lishbo according to the words of the heroes of Ari (Machot 11 45 and Ari) that the taste The fact that it is forbidden to make a city of refuge surrounded by a wall is because of its sanctity that a leper flees from it, and one who exiles to a city of refuge cannot flee from there. According to his words, when he stayed and was finally surrounded, there is no prohibition to make the city a city of refuge even though the wall remains in it, and if so, it was known to them that Hebron was inhabited And finally it was surrounded as we can also see from the findings that it is a very ancient city from 4500 years ago, therefore there was no problem of a wall, and its wall remained.

(Note: There are indeed two early settlement periods in Hebron, and 2 walls were discovered: one from the Early Bronze Age 3 (about 4500 years ago) and one from the Middle Bronze Age 2 (from about 3800 years ago), which is probably the meaning of the verse "and Hebron was built for seven years before the Egyptians' Zoan". This is the wall that was in Hebron in the days of Yehoshua ben Nun. Before the construction of this wall, a Canaanite population already lived in the city, and therefore it "settled and was finally surrounded". N.A.)

However, according to this, apparently, it is not necessary to read in Hebron in the 10th according to the opinion of the Shoah, Appendix I, who ruled that even regarding the reading of the Megillah, we say that he sat down and in the end, his judgment was circumscribed as a sentence, and even though the Bihal (D.H. on the opinion that they were not circumcised) took as a Tori interpretation even that if New houses were built in it after the Kippah was discussed according to the houses that were built after the Kippah, after all, what do you think, if in Hebron during the time of Joshua before the conquest of the land, most of the houses were after the construction of its wall, then it also has the sanctity of walled cities, and again the question returns how they made it a city of refuge If at the time of Joshua most of the houses were before the construction of the wall, why is it called BTU?

For the Anad, despite the ruling of the Shu'a, it must be taken that the words of Rival in the scroll 3 EB were brought only incidentally, and with regard to the scroll there is no ruling on whether it was circumscribed and finally sat down or not, as it means from the words of Rashi 3 EB 4 He sat down and was finally surrounded, he wrote that this saying was said only about the houses of the walled cities. And it seems that the ruling should be based on this understanding, because it appears from the Rambam, as written by HaLem Mishna Megillah 1:10 and Aruchash Tarfat, 7, and Rabbi Kook (Mitzot Raya to S. Tarfat), and Rabbi Grosberg (Noam 17 p. Tzad) and noted that Ka Habit Yitzchak in his innovations to the tractate Megillah. And the explanation for this is very understandable because for the Megillah issue the main thing is that the city is protected as it is written in the Gemara.

And even though the Shu'a did not rule that way, it seems that he did not agree to look at it, since he assumed that all the places were held as surrounded and finally sat, and therefore there is no NKAM in it, and since the Tosafs obtained on Rashi Nekat Kavtiho. But now that we have a NKAM in this, there is Let us go back and look at this, and we will look to discuss it according to the simple explanation that comes from Rashi and the Rambam.

Also regarding the renewal of the Tori Ibn, if most of the houses settled in it after the construction of the wall, the law changes, it seems that it cannot be accepted as Halacha, because simply it is not something that changes, but the determining factor is what was at the time of the construction of the wall, and if it then "settled and was finally surrounded" it is considered a foregone conclusion that at the time of its construction The wall did not matter as a wall.

According to what has been said, it seems that every law "settled and finally surrounded" is only for the law of a walled city, but it has a 10th law for reading the Megillah, because it seems from the Gemara and the Rambam that the main thing is that the city is protected and covered, therefore it is the law of Hebron to read in the 10th.

And with regard to the question about Rabbi Kook, how did he stop reading the OT with a blessing, Chol, who relied on a report from the Rial (end of Siman 17) that discusses the person who puts on tefillin Darshii and Darati over what he blesses, and wrote that he blesses what is the main Hadin, and gave examples of this, and concluded: 'And from the Megillah passages in the 14th and 15th, the Rambam wrote to bless the 14th as a rabbi dalma, even though there is complete doubt on the back of their mind, and the 15th considers the didiya like the 14th, and 26 in this matter. '. acc.

Rabbi Yosef Yona in the monthly "Ha'Otzer" Na p. Remo raised the difficulty of the Maharil's words that apparently it is not understood what Madin Sefk learned in the Megila for us, after all, in the Megila it is a matter of complete doubt and they call the Jud with blessing only because they follow the majority, whereas in this matter Didan does not have the sense of The majority, and from May "of course" Ika.

And he wrote that it seems that his intention is that he understands in the Rambam's opinion that from the point of view of the limits of the law there is complete doubt, but there is a decision of the sages here that in such a situation they follow the majority in the matter of leading the main day. And his intention is that if when they ordered to lead the main thing on the 14th day even though in truth there is a reasonable doubt, this includes blessing On that day which is the most important thing, after all, this is the main thing from the point of view of the things themselves, of course one should bless the day which is the main thing.

And according to this, Rabbi Kook's words are understood, that only when there is doubt that Koel blesses the 10th, but when it is clear that the main point of the judgment should be the 10th, he blesses the 10th, because it is known that what he did in the 10th is not the main thing.

And I have already brought in a counter the reading of the Megillah עברון עבורון 5671 that the Maharam ben Habib wrote in Shovat Kol Gedol at the end of C.A. (p. F).

And in any case, since we did not find such a thing, that one reads the Bible without a blessing, in fact it seems that if we take into account that in Hebron the main law is to read the Bible, as can be seen both from the findings presented in the article, and also from the explanation I wrote in my article about the reading of the Megillah in Hebron, which seems to be the main law of reading the Bible in honor of her of the Land of Israel does not depend on the sanctity of the walled cities, but rather on the memory of the conquest of the Land of Israel by Joshua who conquered cities in different ways, and the main doubt was from the fact that there was no certainty about the location of the surrounded city of Hebron until they found the remains of the wall, and now there is no doubt about it, therefore it seems that the instruction to the public It should be read in 12th, and only those who want will read in 24th as well.

Rabbi Dov Lior Shalita Rabbi of Kiryat Arba Hebron agreed with me mainly on the law that the main time of Hebron is 10, but nevertheless he said not to change from what they used to bless on the 14th. 2014 also resolved the doubt that the wall of Hebron may not have remained in existence in its entirety. And although in my humble opinion, even without this, the fact that there was a wall at the time of the occupation is enough to justify the statement that the main thing is in the Tou, in any case, perhaps Rabbi Lior was concerned that the wall might not have remained and that is why it has no sense Booth, and since this doubt is now resolved, and it is clear that Hebron remained fortified during the days of the First Temple, orders the custom to be changed.

And it goes along with the fact that recently there are some rulings that in other places (Lod, Beit Shemesh) instruct to read only in the 12th (as explained in the Monthly Treasury, Mat, N, Na, and in the magazine Please bring that this is how Rabbi Nebentzel ruled regarding Beit Shemesh) and did not fear a change from the custom.

Sources: Aden - Biowitz 2017: David Aden Biowitz, List of 'Walled Cities' and the Archaeological - Historical Evidence from Yodafat and Magamala, Tarvitz Su, 4 2017 449-470 Isenberg 1972 (1): Emanuel Isenberg, "The Fortifications of Hebron in the Period The Bronze", Eretz Yisrael L (5772), pp. 14-32. Eisenberg 1972 (2): Emanuel Eisenberg, "The Archaeological Excavations at Tel Hebron", in Yoram Almachias and Moriah Perjon (eds.), Hebron Research Conference: Proceedings of the First Conference, Kiryat Arba 1972, pp. 8-20. Eisenberg and Ben Shlomo, 2016: Emanuel Eisenberg and David Ben Shlomo, "Tel Hebron", Archaeological News 128 (2016). 2017), pp. 101–109. Eisenberg and Ben-Shlomo, 2017: Emanuel Eisenberg & David Ben-Shlomo (eds.), The Tel Hevron 2014 Excavations: Final Report, Ariel 2017. Vala Nagorski, "Tel Hebron (A-Rumidi)", Archaeological News 114 (5573), pp. 112-113. Alba 5561: Rabbi Ido Alba, Reading the Megillah Problem 6 Hebron and its Neighborhoods, Institute for the Rabbis of Yishuvim, Kiryat Arba 561 Elitzur 5600: Yoel Elitzur, When was the time of Purim in the settlement of Beit El and the army camps there, Domshin 1, editors: Rabbi Israel Rosen and Rabbi Yehuda Shabiv, Alon Shabbat 5661 - 118 (to this article are attached opinions from Magdoli The Torah ztzel - Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, Rabbi Sharia Devlitsky) Arnon reference: Noam Arnon, "The Cave of the Patriarchs - the site and its history from its beginning to the end of ancient times", University of Bar Ilan RG Tashf "A. Ben Shlomo and Eisenberg, 2014: David Ben Shlomo and Emanuel Eisenberg, "New Excavations at Tel Hebron", Antiquities 152, 2014, pp. 101-108. Ben Shlomo, 1956: David Ben Shlomo, "New Discoveries from the Second Temple in Tel Hebron", in Yoram Almachias and Moriah Perjon (editors), Hebron and Judea Research Conference: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference, Kiryat Arba 1966, p. 10 -25. Ben Shlomo, 2016 (1): David Ben-Shlomo, "Tel Hebron during the Late Roman – Early Byzantine Period", Judea and Samaria Research Studies 25 (2016), pp. 29–43. Ben Shlomo, 2016 (2): David Ben-Shlomo: "Pottery Production at Tel Ḥevron during the Early Roman Period" Judea and Samaria Research Studies 25 (2016), pp. 111–136. Ben Shlomo, 1977: David Ben Shlomo, "Purification Makkavet from the Second Temple in Tel Hebron", Studies in Judea and Samaria 201 (1977), pp. 47-68. Ben Shlomo & Eisenberg, 2017 David Ben-Shlomo & Emanuel Eisenberg,: "The Remains in Area 53A: Stratigraphy and Architecture", in Emanuel Eisenberg & David Ben-Shlomo (eds.), Tel Hebron 2014 Excavations: Final Report, Ariel 2017. Weinshtov and Ben Shlomo, 2016 Daniel Vainstub and David Ben-Shlomo, A Hebrew Seal and an Ostracon from Tel Hebron, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 66, no. 2 (2016), pp. 151-160 (10 pages) Vainstub and Ben-Shlomo, 2017 Daniel Vainstub & David Ben-Shlomo,

"A Hebrew Seal and an Ostracon from Tel Hebron", Israel Exploration Journal 66, 2 (2016), pp. 151–160 (= in Emanuel Eisenberg & David Ben Shlomo [eds.], The Tel Hevron 2014 Excavations: Final Report, Ariel 2017, pp. 395–400). Zoldan 1972: Yehuda Zoldan, on the history of the reading of the Megillah in the 12th of Adar in the modern land of Israel - an essay for receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Bar Ilan University RG 1972 Zoldan 1973: Yehuda Zoldan, Megillah bekkofot Homa: Bible A scroll in Jerusalem and the walled cities of the Land of Israel from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, Jerusalem 1973 Zisso 5666: Boaz Zissou, "A city with roofed roofs" and "A city surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben-Nun" - in the light of the archaeological find from Judah, Studies of Judea and Samaria 15 (Tashsu) Ariel 85-100 Kharalp 1777 (1): Gideon Kharalp, Hebron if it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun, Shem Olam - a memorial file for the Kiryat Arba yeshiva students who fell in the Yom Kippur war, editors: Yishai Aviezer And Moshe Ozeri, Kiryat Arba 1977, 140 – 155 Haralaf 1977 (2): Gideon Haralaf, Walled Cities Destroyed Humatan, Shem Olam - a memorial file for the Kiryat Arba Yeshiva students who fell in the Yom Kippur War, editors: Yishai Aviezer And Moshe Ozeri, Kiryat Arba 2018, 156 - 170 Lifshitz 2018: Oded Lifshitz: The Age of Empires: History and Administration in Judea in the Light of Seal Imprints on Jars (from the 8th to the 2nd Century BCE), Jerusalem Melamed 500: Rabbi Zalman Melamed, Time of Purim in the settlement of Beit El, Areas I Alon Shavuot 130 - 135 Ofer 5756: Avi Ofer, Avi Ofer, "Tel Romida (Hebron) - 1985", Pah Archaeological News (5576), p. 28. Ofer 1986: Avi Ofer, "Tel Hebron - 1986", Archaeological News C (5788), pp. 47-48. Ofer 1999: Avi Ofer, "The Biblical Hebron Excavations", Kedomuniy 87-88 (1999), pp. 88-93. Ofer 1991: Avi Ofer, "Biblical Mount Judah", in: Nadav Naaman and Israel Finkelstein (editors), Wanderings to the Kingdom: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of the Beginning of Israel, Jerusalem 1991, pp. 19-194. Ofer 1992: Avi Ofer, "Hebron", in Ephraim Stern, Ayelet Levinzon-Gilboa and Yosef Aviram (editors), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Land of Israel, II, Jerusalem 1992, pp. 475-478. Ofer 1987: Avi Ofer, Mount Judah in the biblical period, doctoral thesis, Tel-Aviv University 1997. Inbar, 1989: Moshe Inbar, "A cuneiform tablet from the 17th-16th centuries BC discovered in Hebron", Kadmuniy 87-88 (1989), pp. 94-95. Pelag 1973: Yuval Pelag , A tomb from the Late Bronze Age at Tel Hebron, research conference Hebron 3, Kiryat Arba 2013 11-18 Tabori 2017: Yosef Tabori, for the history of the term "surrounded by a wall" in connection with the reading of the scroll, Sinai; A monthly for the Torah and the Jewish sciences Kev (Tashemez) Titkaka-Titkal

[1] Hotzel was a famous city in Babylon: it is mentioned about 30 times in the Babylonian Talmud. It is said that the Shekinah sometimes lines up in her synagogue (Magila 90). In Israel there is no known city named Hotzl; the Tosafs learned from the act of Derv Asi that even abroad the rule of law is a scroll in the 10th century. Only according to the Ramban and Rabbi Hotzl in which Rav Asi read 14th and 10th was in Israel in the land of Binyamin . From a historical point of view, it is difficult to interpret this, since Rabbi Assi was not in Israel at all, and during the days of the Tanaim and the Amorites it does not appear that Jews lived in the land of Binyamin. We also found in Chulin the phrase: "I will install Rabbi Assi in Hotzal as he heard", hence this was his place. Debnamin is in Babylon. Regarding the origin of the nickname 'Dabnamin', it can perhaps be interpreted that they had a tradition that when they were exiled to Babylon in the first destruction, people from Benjamin settled there (see: B.C. Eshel, The Jewish Settlements in Babylon during the Talmud Period, p. 106). (Note by Yoel Elitzur).

[2] This bereita is cited in several fundamental issues in Babylon (Arakhin Lev:, Megillah 10 Shavuot 16) and there two versions of Rabbi Bar Yossi's words are cited (VII the second opinion is that of Rabbi Elazar his brother), which the Talmud is based on They are in dispute whether the first sanctification is sanctification for the future to come. It should be noted that the wording in the Mishnat Arakhin "and as in the case of them" supports the second opinion there in Barita in the Gemara: "And not only these, but whatever tradition comes up in your hand from your ancestors which is a Mokhah from the Hebrew Bible, all these mitzvot are practiced." (Note by Yoel Elitzur)

[3] Moshe Haim Kapsuto, Yoman Metzak for the Holy Land 1544, Jerusalem 1573, pp. 24-26, cited in Zoldan, Dissertation, p. 166

[4] In a similar way, it should be said about the words of the Meiri at the beginning of the tractate Megillah, who explained how they knew whether the city was settled first or was surrounded first "according to the speech", and his words are as follows: (Bayt al-Haqah Megillah 2 2): "A volume that will be settled will begin with the building of the houses and finally be surrounded by a wall, Although in the days of Joshua it was surrounded, it is like a city and a village for the purpose of reading the 14th, but it is not like a village for the purpose of advancing the day of entry without a city. And you have a MM volume that is like a city, and this volume is discussed as a city and Kfar to the law of walled cities, RL who does not have the law of walled cities to say that its redemption is only a year but the law of the cities of the courtyards. And how did they know in the days of Yehoshua which city would be settled first and which would be surrounded first? Maybe according to the word, or maybe just cities according to their custom are surrounded by a wall first." In our generation, when the facts are clear, one must say "she is not in heaven" and one must rule according to reality.

[5] Ben Shlomo and Eisenberg, 2017.

[6] Ofer, 579, pp. 90-92.

[7] Weinshtov and Ben Shlomo, 2016.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Yoel Elitzur in his article in "Dashkin" 1:109-126 on the time of Purim in Beit El Shem referred to the words of the Radbaz and the difficulty that the time of reading the scroll according to the Rambam's ruling and the accepted opinion is not a matter for the sanctity of the walled cities and is a practice both abroad and in Tiberias. "There is no sanctity of walled cities because the sea is walled on one side, and it depends only on the historical question of whether there was a wall at the time of the occupation of the land in the days of Joshua, and therefore the Halacha that the walls should be torn down, even if it does exist, is not relevant to the discussion. In any case, this article discusses the idea that it was necessary to build a wall, but it seems that it is not valid in the medium-sized cities.

[10] The words of the Rabbi are based on the words of the owner "Nefesh Haya" who referred to the words of "Sha'arei Tshuva" on the Shu'a Och 8 sign 1958, section 4: "Spec. Abhat 9 and A. Bar'i in the name of 1990 Hardev "7 of the 7th century that Hebron AHK Peshita Dayna is surrounded by the deaths of Yehoshua and Korin in the 14th century, but an ancient custom to happen all the days is sufficient." On this the owner of "Nefesh Haya" wrote: "And according to the words of the columnist on the Torah on the verse "Three cities shall be set apart for you" - that they were strong and fortified cities, that the redeemer of blood would not come against them in an army."

[11] The owner of "Dobb Mishri" - Rabbi Dov Berish Weidenfeld was born in Poland in 1881. In 1923 he was appointed rabbi and rabbi in the city of Chebin. In 1946 he immigrated to Israel and founded the Yeshiva Star of Jacob. He was a member of the Council of Torah Elders. Died in 1965. His book "Dubb Mishri" was printed in a new edition in Jerusalem in 2010.

(from the site of the Jewish in Hebron)